News:

"The phone is a remarkably complex, simple device,
and very rarely ever needs repairs, once you fix them." - Dan/Panther

Main Menu

My 302.

Started by Stephen Furley, May 17, 2009, 08:12:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Stephen Furley

Quote from: BDM on June 16, 2009, 06:52:51 PM
Adding to what Dennis has posted. The dial is either a #4 or #5. Both will make a "clikity-clak" sound, but the #4 is much louder. W.E. dials have a unique sound to them. I can tell it's metal by the paint flake in the pics. The network coil, ringer and base should also have date markings. Glad you were able to get a piece of American history ;D That phone was a staple for many years in many homes. BTW, the H1 indicates a single non part line phone.

The base (inside), transmitter and ringer are all marked '9-38'.  The transmitter cap is marked '9 22 38'.  I can't see any marking on the network

HobieSport

Quote from: Stephen Furley
The base (inside), transmitter and ringer are all marked '9-38'.  The transmitter cap is marked '9 22 38'.  I can't see any marking on the network

That's a nice early 302 with a 4H dial, Stephen.  I'm surprised that has so little paint wear on the cradle ears.
-Matt

bingster

There's definitely going to be some wiring strangeness as it relates to the handset cord.  The 302 uses a three-conductor handset cord, whereas the cord that's on it is a four-conductor cord from a 500. 

The mounting (line) cord should be three conductors, as you have there.  A black conductor was unnecessary. 

The date on the dial is almost certainly IV-38. The ink may have smeared on the first number, making it look like another 8.  The dials and some other parts of western electric phones are dated to the quarter-year, so the dial is from the fourth quarter of 1938.  Combined with the 9/38 dates on the handset's elements, that means your phone is probably untouched, except for the much newer handset cord.
= DARRIN =



Dennis Markham

#18
Bingster, what do you think about the dial being 4A?  Probably an "H"?  Until recently though I didn't know there was a 5E dial so there may be a 4A...I've just never seen one.  An "A" can appear to be an H to a guy that forgot his glasses.  Believe me, I can relate.

bingster

I'm betting it's a poorly marked H.  I haven't seen them all of course, but I've never seen a 4 marked with anything but an H.
= DARRIN =



Phonesrfun

If it is a #4 dial it is more likely a 4H, which can look like "4A".  They were noisy.  Western dials always sounded loud compared to AE dials, but I have heard from many that the AE dials were more prone to freezing up.

It would be good to see a pic of the inside of the phone.

302's rarely had any markings on the outside of the base unless they were a refurb.  The date on the inside is more the norm.  Also a 38 date is a probaility, especially with a #4 dial.

-Bill
-Bill G

Stephen Furley

I went to a shoe shop today and bought a suede shoe brush; it's brought the feet up quite nicely.

I may have been mistaken about the number on the dial; I'll take it out at the weekend and have another look.  With the combination of poor light, lack of glasses, which I still haven't got because I haven't been at work today, and being permanently tired from the diabetes, I could easily have mis-read it.

I've cleaned the dial and hook switch contacts, and re-attached the wire from the handset cord, and it's working now.  I think the dial is possibly just slightly slow, but not much; dialing '8' on it seems to take almost exactly the same time as dialing '9' on a 746.  It's close enough to work.

I want to keep this in as close to original condition as possible.  I'm not going to touch the paintwork with anything more than a damp cloth.  The dial card I've fitted is new, but it didn't have an original one.  The plastic cover over it is also new, but looking at the one which came with the 'phone I don't think it's original, so replacing it probably isn't a great sin.

The handset cord seems to be a good quality one, it would be fine on a more modern 'phone, but it just isn't right on this one, and it's been very badly fitted.  It's going to have to go, but I'll put proper spades on it, and keep it for use elsewhere.  The line cord isn't so much of a problem, but I think I'll replace it with a cloth one.  It won't be original, but then neither is the present one, so I'm not losing any original parts.  I'll clean up the old Bakelite plug that I've got and fit that to the new cord; there's a slight chip in it, but it hardly shows.

As for the dial, there is quite a loud click with each pulse as it runs back but from what others have said, that sounds normal.  The sound when the dial is turned forwards is a bit like gears which have been incorrectly depthed, and are running on the tips of the teeth, but I don't think the dial is worn, I get the impression that the 'phone hasn't had a great deal of use for its age.

Sometime soon I'm going to have to look at my other 302, the one that is full of mud, now dried out.  Since it won't be possible to keep this in anything like original condition, I'll clean the body down to bare metal, and re-paint it.  I'll buy a second pair of cords for this one.  I'm not sure what I'm going to be able to do with the dial on this one.  This dial is a different type; I don't know if it's a No. 5, what is the difference between the two types?

The last 'standard' metal 'phone over here was probably the 150 Candlestick in the '20s.  The 200 and 300 series were Bakelite, and the 706 onwards ABS.  Also, while we had a more limited colour range, we didn't have painted plastic 'phones, they were always coloured plastic.

I'll take some pictures of the 'new' 302 at the weekend.

I went to the Telephone Lines shop while I was in Cheltenham; they had a nice black AE40, the only one I've seen in this country.  If it's still there after next pay day I may think about it.  Not cheap, but I wouldn't have to pay postage on it.

Dennis Markham

Stephen, I added a sound file to a posting I made on my blog site.  Scroll down near the bottom of this article and you'll be able to listen to a #4 dial.  Listening to it now it seems to be running a bit fast.  But you'll get the idea.

http://www.vintagerotaryphones.com/?p=113

Phonesrfun

Stephen:

Sounds like you are on the right track.  

There is not a great deal of difference between a #4 and a #5 dial, except for the clicking sound.  The #4 dials were big clickers, and the #5 had some things to dampen the clicking noise.  The gear train between the two were almost alike.

-Bill

-Bill G

Stephen Furley

Quote from: Dennis Markham on June 17, 2009, 06:41:56 PM
Stephen, I added a sound file to a posting I made on my blog site.  Scroll down near the bottom of this article and you'll be able to listen to a #4 dial.  Listening to it now it seems to be running a bit fast.  But you'll get the idea.

http://www.vintagerotaryphones.com/?p=113

Dennis, To be honest, that doesn't sound much different to mine; maybe mine is a bit noisier, but not much.

bingster

Quote from: Stephen Furley on June 17, 2009, 06:36:31 PM
Sometime soon I'm going to have to look at my other 302, the one that is full of mud ... This dial is a different type; I don't know if it's a No. 5, what is the difference be
The #5 dial is similar to a #4, but it's quieter.  The ticking is fainter on the return, the windup is still heard, but quieter.  You may also have a #6 dial on that one.  A #6 has no ticking on the return.
= DARRIN =



Stephen Furley

I've just used the 302 on an ISDN line via an ISDN terminal adapter with analogue ports, and a hand held tone dialer, and the quality really is very good, better than many later 'phones that I've heard.

Phonesrfun

And what did you expect   ;D

-Bill
-Bill G

Stephen Furley

Well, one of the improvements made when they introduced the 500 was said to be better sound quality, but I think this sounds as good as a 500.  Also, most carbon microphones of this sort of vintage are falling off in output now.

I called it at lunchtime, and it rang, but I've just tried again and it didn't.  I'm not sure why, I haven't altered anything.  It can't be anything serious.

I wonder if this is the first time a 302 has been used on ISDN?  I've got it on a normal analogue switchboard extension now.

HobieSport

Quote from: Stephen Furley
Also, most carbon microphones of this sort of vintage are falling off in output now.

Removing the mic and giving it a couple of good taps can re-loosen the carbon granules and improve performance, correct?
-Matt